THE SHEARING SHED HANDS

Maoriland Worker, Volume 1, Issue 4, 15 December 1910, Page 4

THE SHEARING SHED HANDS

The Arbitration Court has given its decision, such as it is, in the application brought by the Shearers' Union for an award governing the conditions of the work of shearing shed hands. The Court dismissed the application, and told the Shearers' Union that there was no dispute before the Court. No wonder the shearers, as well as the shed hands are exasperated. When the case was before the Court Mr. Laracy who appeared for the Sheareis' Union admitted that there was no direct correspondence between the Shearers' Union and the Sheepowners' Union as to a dispute, but said that as secretary of the Federation of Shearers he had communicated with the secretary of the New Zealand Sheepowners' and Farmers' Federation regarding a confereace on the shed hands' wages and conditions of work. The employers by way of reply filed a reference for a dispute with the shearers. Apart, however, from these proceedings, it is well known that negotiations have been going on for months, and it is therefore, merely a legal quibble to say that there is no dispute. Moreover, while the Court made an award in the case of the shearers, the shed hands, who, on the merits of the case, are equally entitled to have their demands considered, are apparently to be left to make what terms they can with the sheepowners. This, perhaps, will not be a serious matter to them; for with the support of the Shearers' Union they are no doubt able, through their organisation, to make demands to which the Sheepowners' Union will give t.-ai eful attention; but it is particalaidy irritating after going to the trouble of preparing a case, to be told that there is no dispute to settle. The raising of comparatively unimportant technical points, and the strict observance of the rules of procedure, is altogether inconsistent with the spirit of the Arbitration Act, and a few more decisions of this kind will strain the patience of the workers to the breaking point. The result will be that more unions will cancel their registration under the Arbitration Act, and industrial disputes will not be sent to it for decision. The position is all the more perplexing because the Court's decision, after stuting that there is no dispute directly between the Shearers' Union and the Sheepowners' Union, goes on to intimate that "it is true that there is now an industrial dispute between the two Unions,, but that is not sufficient to give the Court jurisdiction. Before the Court can acquire jurisdiction to make an award it must be clear that there wa3 an industrial dispute in existence between the two Unions at the date when the application was filed. The Shearers' Union has failed to prove that there was any such dispute in existence, and the Court has no jurisdiction to make an award." In effect, therefore, the Court admits that there is a dispute, but it takes advantage of a technil cality m order to avoid makjng an award. This is not the way to bring about industrial peace " Timaru Post," 30.'11/10.